The politicians and experts (including economists) tend nowadays to sit inside a bubble, in which they only interact with people like themselves. And those "outsiders" who dare question them are dismissed, because "they, the economists, are in the know", - all their friends, associates and colleagues say so.
QEII however is not an "expert", she's one of those annoying outsiders - whom they can't ignore or dismiss because of her position.

There is in my eyes nothing wrong or even odd, that a Monarch, who has a constitutional role as QEII has, from time to time asks questions, or even question the policy of her ministers.
On the contrary, I would think less of her if she didn't.

Its not like this is something new. HM herself has talked in tv documentaries about how she can ask to see anyone and ask them questions. I don't think anyone really thought she was exchanging recipes during these audiances. It is how she finds out what is going on. It is up to government ministers as to whether or not they act on her questions/opinions. Much ado about nothing.

I agree as usual. I'd be shocked if HM wasn't having conversations with her ministers.

Agreed - conversations (communication) are key.

I find in life that when I ask people questions, they tell me things I might not have guessed. And when people ask me questions - even as I may disagree with them, I find insight to possible solutions for the gap between our points of view.

Even if all Her Majesty is doing is asking questions to point out the weakness in a position - by doing so she warns her ministers that the weakness is visible. If visible - it can be exploited by the press or the opposition. Further strategy can be planned. It is a discreet, but I am sure, often effective approach.

I have always found Elizabeth II to be a subtle monarch. Sometime so subtle, that we missed the subtlety.

The same goes for the Duke of Edinburgh's humor sometimes (but methinks, not always )

I can only speak personally, but it's reassuring to me that the Queen cares about these issues so much and attempts to use her position for the common good. To know that behind closed doors the Queen is asking the sort of questions that her subjects would ask if they had the opportunity of a one-on-one with the Home Secretary is heartening.

The geniuses at 'Republic' have changed the angle of their attack. They're now saying that the leak of HM's conversation was a deliberate ploy by the Palace and the BBC to try and make the Queen look good. This after saying that the public would be unhappy at her 'interference' in issues she shouldn't be involving herself with. They're suggesting that it's an attempt to fool the British people by playing up to populist anger over the Abu Hamza debacle.

They complain about not being taken seriously. All they need do is look in the mirror.

It must be disheartening for 'republicans' to come to terms with the fact their 'movement' is little more than a website and a couple of dozen champagne socialists that preach about a 'divisive' class system whilst living in million pound mansions

In 2002, Graham Turner wrote a series of interesting articles about the Queen in the Telegraph. One was about her relationship with politicians and public servants, how she discusses issues with her Prime Ministers and how there is a whole ring of silence around her that prevents leaks. It quotes a lot of people and is quite revealing :http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/32...-part-two.html

The Queen appears almost like the ideal monarch : dedicated, clever, discreet, efficient, stoic, ... In fact, the article is so positive that I would have almost put in doubt the sincerity of the journalist ; but he is quite harsh and negative in depicting her family life in this other article, so I think that, after all, he may not have tried to embelish what he had been told about her dedication to her job !http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/32...zabeth-II.html

The extent of the Queen and Prince Charles's secretive power of veto over new laws has been exposed after Downing Street lost its battle to keep information about its application secret.

-------

You'll notice that the first mention of this power being exercised on the advice of the government of the day is in paragraph 17. The existence of the power isn't exactly a secret, either. It works the same way in the Canadian Parliament. The fact that the Queen was asked by the government to not consent to the bill on military action in Iraq was already publicly known, and it was actually published in Hansard.

I have read this article and over a 100 comments under it now.
I am afraid this article is rather paranoid.
And except for 1 or 2, all comments are negative..
It simply highlights the fact that Queen can veto, but people just dont appreciate another fact that Queen has never vetoed, without the advice of the ministers. So this is not an issue at all.
But these guys are showing up as if The Queen does a lot of manipulations behind the scene, undermining the democracy, and benefitting her own family and class..
If a few of such things happen, I am afraid some movement for "clipping" Royal Prerogative may begin, and actually go ahead, eventually reducing the Queen to something like Swedish King..

I would think that there would be a reason they have to read and sign state papers all but 2 days a year. It isn't just a rubber stamp and they do all that reading just because.

No padams, the moment u make them look like "not rubber-stamps" immediately all hell will break loose. People will start questioning everything. The very point of constitutional monarchy is a rubber-stamp monarch.
Anything to the contrary will terribly affect the "blind loveand faith" people have for the Queen.
Actually she is indeed acting as a rubber-stamp. Never vetoed without the Minister's advice. Perfetly as per law.

The monarch has three rights - to advise, to warn and to be consulted.

They do have the right to veto laws but no monarch has done so since Queen Anne.

The Dukes of Lancaster and Cornwall also have the right to veto legislation that affects their holdings but again neither has exercised that right for centuries - it is more a traditional right than anything else.

Most of the Ministers of the Crown are elected politicians with seats in the House of Commons although some may be either eleted or appointed to the House of Lords. These ministers are chosen by the Prime Minister and then sworn in by The Queen but she has no say over who is or isn't a minister - that is the choice of the PM. She only has a say in who is PM if and when there is no clear majority party in the Commons as otherwise the PM is clear - the leader of the largest party in the Commons. All the ministers sit in the parliament and are answerable to the parliament.

The last time a bill actually made it through the parliament and was vetoed was in Queen Anne's day. Since then there have been some bills that the monarch has indicated they would have trouble signing and some sort of compromise has been reached or the bill dropped altogether but if push comes to shove and a PM is determined to get a bill through that the monarch insists on vetoeing then next step would be an election fought on the issue of the monarch's right to veto legislation - the monarch would lose big time.